I think I'm a part of the first generation of journalists to skip print media entirely, and I've learned a lot these last few years at Forbes. My work has appeared on TVOvermind, IGN, and most importantly, a segment on The Colbert Report at one point. Feel free to follow me on Twitter or on Facebook, write me on Facebook or just email at paultassi(at)gmail(dot)com. I'm also almost finished with my sci-fi novel series, The Earthborn Trilogy.

Gaming Journalism's Problem Isn't Being 'Beholden' to Companies

Criticism is a part of writing, and though it can be constructive, it’s also exhausting at times. I can spend a long while writing a piece I think is particularly good, only to have it torn apart online by savage commenters who seem bent on crushing my very soul. Such instances are why these last two weeks have been surprisingly refreshing.

Forum threads, comments, tweets and emails have been full of tremendous support and kind words for myself and the other Forbes gaming contributors, due to our coverage of the Mass Effect 3 controversy. So much so, the internet has even spawned images like this one, which is both humorous and heartwarming, as it’s always nice to be recognized for your work, and it really does mean a lot to us as writers.

But parts of the conversation have turned to a subject that’s bothered me for a while now. While I appreciate the comments that our pieces are honest, objective and well-written, I see many saying that such things are rare to see because all the other mainstream gaming journalism sites are “beholden” to game companies for ad dollars, free games and such. Therefore, unbiased gaming journalism is all but nonexistent.

I wrote about a conspiracy theory yesterday which has the *real* ending of Mass Effect 3 explained by a series of blog posts and YouTube videos that turn it into something else more intelligent. It’s kind of a stretch in parts, but it’s completely rational compared to another gaming conspiracy, that all journalists are in the pockets of EA, Activision and the other major corporations, and are therefore capable of producing unbiased pieces.

Such thinking was brought up when many of the big sites, Kotaku, G4, IGN and so on began publishing pieces or writing tweets that were mocking fans for wanting a new ending to Mass Effect 3. Meanwhile, my initial post suggested that if Bioware didn’t want to lose the good will of its fans, a valuable, fast-shrinking commodity, changing or updating the ending would be good for both fans and the brand. In a follow-up piece, I made a simple statement that “fan service is good business.” My pieces were well received by the community while theirs were not.

But does that make Kotaku, G4, IGN and other agents of EA? Were they really influenced to defend the ending of the game and lambast those who questioned it? No. Such behavior might make them look like jerks in many people’s eyes, as it’s never wise to outright mock your readership, but it hardly makes them servants of the corporations. I honestly believe many of them just didn’t care. They either didn’t see what all the fuss was about, or really do believe that “art” is sacred, and should never be changed for an audience.

I’m a freelancer for Forbes, and have only recently gotten my start in the gaming industry a few years ago . As such, I am not an entrenched figure on the scene, and only rarely do I receive products or press invitations from companies, as I don’t yet know all the right PR people. I never get advance review copies of games.

Nope, I had to pay for this.

Perhaps it makes me more passionate about a title when I’ve spent $60 of my own money on it, or if it’s a series that has cost me over $200 to date. But the fact remains that if EA had shipped me a free early review copy, none of what I said would have changed. I think it’s a bit disingenuous if you truly believe that the industry as a whole is corrupted to a degree where ads and review copies are really changing people’s opinions and review scores.

Many are upset with game critics for giving Mass Effect 3 high review marks, and it’s another avenue of criticism that I think is unfair. If a game is absolutely astonishing for twenty nine hours and fifty five minutes of its 30 hour runtime, does it deserve to be given a low score because the last few minutes are such a letdown? You could argue that, if you believe the ending negates your enjoyment of the entire game, but I think the stronger case is that the game on the whole is a pretty stunning accomplishment, even if the ball is dropped through the floor in the closing moments.

I’m not saying that journalistic bias or corporate influence never happens in the industry. We all know the famous story of the Gamespot editor who was fired because of a low score given to a crappy game whose publishers were in league with the site owners. And there have been a handful of threats of sites losing privileges like free games or press invites based on certain stories. But you have to admit that these instances are quite rare, especially considering the massive amount of gaming articles that go to print across thousands of sites every day. And with writers who love to talk as much as they do, if there really was a big conspiracy or scandal, don’t you think someone would have blown the whistle by now?

But if there’s a perceived problem, there is usually an actual problem behind it. It just might not be the one you think. The main issue I think gaming journalism is suffering from right now is fatigue. Some of the veterans in the industry have been doing this so long, they’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a fan, which often results in a very strong and obvious disconnect with their readers. At many sites, it seems that the writers are at times purposefully picking fights with their audience now, either through baiting or just poor attempts at trying to have “attitude.” It’s strange and sad to see, and is a problem that needs to be addressed at many of these places.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Yeah, this is my impression most of the time. The different sites might inflate the numerical value at the end of the review, but what they put in the text usually reflects the pros and cons of the game well enough. Many sites didn’t even single out the ending because no emotional attachment to the story and rushing to meet the deadline meant they just shrugged it off as “kinda weird” and moved on. But IGN really does deserve singling out, both for being uniquely aggresive towards the customer base and for getting so involved into an argument about a game where one of their own stars. You can only say they’re independent press for so long. Where Jessica Chobot of IGN fame is also Jessica Chobot from Mass Effect 3, it’s hard not to put 2 and 2 together.

I didn’t even know about the connection, but I was really excited about the idea of a reporter tagging along on the ship. From a storytelling standpoint, it seemed like it could have led to some really clever story points about how others are viewing the war and the Normandy’s quest. Instead, we got a vapid, horribly-acted, grating character that should make BioWare rethink the option to carry your gun around inside the Normandy.

I used my friend’s Xbox 360 a few days ago and when I checked out some of the videos for IGN’s Insider Tips for ME3, i have to say, I felt a little ticked off by it. Now as a person, I’ve never had an issue with Jessica Chobot, never had a bad thing to say. Under normal circumstances I used to watch her videos because I wanted to hear about the games, what I might have missed in a playthrough, things like that.

Now when I watched the ME3 video and listened to Jessica name drop her character in the game, I felt a little bit of vomit well up in the back of my throat. What happened to impartial journalism?? for the whole segment while she was talking about ME3, she would regularly interject that “THIS IS SPOILER FREE!”. Each time she said that, it felt like a spit in the eye from IGN at all of those people that had such valid criticisms with the endings. Heck, maybe it was my imagination, but the fact that she was the one doing the ME3 videos felt like a pretty cheap shot.

Thank you so much for this. If people’s attitudes towards the entire industry are so cynical, they should really just walk away from it. Even last night, after the press statement, people all over BioWare’s forum are up in arms about how guarded and particularly-worded the statement was. As much as people don’t want to admit it, game publishers and developers are businesses. Though we like to think of them as endlessly slaving away towards a creative juggernaut, the fact is that they HAVE TO answer to a bottom line and corporate oversight. I actually think it’s fantastic that BioWare has been able to consistently deliver such great games under EA; proves that EA has faith in them, and since they are the ones paying for the game to get out there, that’s gotta count for something.

I also meant to mention: You make a great point about veteran gaming journalists. People tend to forget that, especially for younger people, your compaints might not hold true to someone not so entrenched in the business. I’ve seen TV reviewers complain about a rehashed storyline on a sitcom, but if the sitcom you’re talking about is, say, The Cosby Show or Cheers, there are a LOT of viewers who have no idea that is the case. And if you’ve never seen it done before, maybe it works just fine for you. Even now, when I see a show use a joke done on Seinfeld or Friends (I was a teen during both of their runs), I may grumble for a moment, but I also realize that many of the people watching that show may not have ever seen those shows. I think you’re right, it would help many journalists to step back, take a breath, and get perspective on who they’re talking to.

The pulishers use access to pre-release material to keep the mainstream gaming websites on message. Those sites main source of revenue is advertising the product they are reviewing. They gain readers by getting access to the review code early. No one would go to the site if the reviews were two weeks after the release

Can a system like that be unbiased. It’s not being cynical to see that relationship as being a little unhealthy.

Mass Effect 3 really is showing a huge disconnect with professional game critics and general gamers. Just look at metacritic which has the average score of multiple critics but also that of regular users. The critics average for the game is 90/100 or 9/10 and regular users give it a 3.7/10 and not one critic has rated this less then 7. That’s a huge difference, usually user and critic scores are about the same so what is happening with this one?

I don’t know exactly what is up, but something is definitely suspicious about it. Being in the publishers pocket isn’t completely outside of the realm of possibility. I remember when Microsoft sent a bunch of people brand new laptops with windows vista installed so they could review it, and of course they got to keep the laptops, this when people hated vista.

How could every game critic have lost touch with their passion for the games they are reviewing. Given the sheer number of people who are talking negatively about this game i’d expect to see more negative reviews for it, but I don’t. It is just totally bizarre. The people who are saying bad things about this game aren’t all unintelligent either, as alot of critics like to say. They have nailed to the wall why this game deserves the rejection it’s getting from fans. But then why do most game critics show such unity in praising the game and they don’t even suggest the ending could have been better, to them the game is nearly perfect. So much so they write articles scoffing at the suggestion the ending could have been improved.

I can’t put this down to a difference of opinion or I would expect to see more negative reviews which support the fans who are upset. I know there’s some players who loved the game and would agree with all the positive reviews. So where is the other side from the critics? There’s got to be more too it.